|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Lawmaker Calls for Refining Threat Alert System By Mike Nartker WASHINGTON — U.S. House Select Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) yesterday said that further refinements were needed for the U.S. terrorism threat alert system — a call that came less than one week after the alert level was raised for the first time in more than seven months (see GSN, Nov. 7). During an appearance on FOX News Sunday, Cox praised the U.S. Homeland Security Department’s “sparing” use of the threat alert system, which rates the current risk of attack as one of five colors — green, representing a “low” risk; blue, representing a “guarded” risk; yellow, representing an “elevated” risk, orange, representing a “high” risk; and red, representing a “severe” risk of attack. Cox warned, however, that the system is “a one-size-fits-all notion that applies to a quarter billion people in America.” Once a decision is made to raise the threat alert level, “we go to a higher state of alert everywhere in all places in America, even though no matter how general the threat,” Cox said. “We can be certain that the country is not threatened in a homogenized way everywhere — the same way at all times,” he added. “I think we always have to worry about scaring people to death when, to a certainty, these terrorists are not omnipotent,” Cox said. Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced such a shift in the national threat alert level, from yellow to orange. Ridge said the decision to raise the level was based, in part, on the large increase in the level and amount of reported information. “We’ve never quite seen it at this level before. And the sources we could point to that are credible and our ability to corroborate some of this information — the strategic indicators suggest that it is the most significant threat reporting since 9/11,” he said. Ridge refused to detail the security measures being implemented in response to the elevated threat level, but said that information relevant to a specific city or potential threat would be shared “when appropriate.” “We have done that in the past and will continue to do so through this period and as long as we’re dealing with the threat of global terrorism,” he said. Xinhua News Agency reported Friday that security had been increased at U.S. nuclear power plants in response to the elevated threat alert level. During an interview last week with NBC’s Today, Ridge said that New York and Washington, which were affected by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, were included on a list of possible targets. He defended, however, the decision to raise the national threat alert level as a whole. “I think it was very appropriate for us to raise it across the country so that all metropolitan areas increase their level of security,” Ridge said (see GSN, Sept. 15) Cox yesterday, though, called for further refinements to the threat alert system to add increased specificity, such as through specific information for a certain region or industry. He added that his committee has worked on legislation that would further refine how the Homeland Security Department uses the alert system. “What we’d like to see is increased communications with people who can act on this intelligence, certainly, with our chiefs of state police; with our governors; with our state and local law enforcement; also with custodians of critical infrastructure in the private sector; people who know just what to do with this, rather the global news,” Cox said. According to Representative Jim Turner (D-Texas), the top Democrat on the House homeland security panel, refinements to the alert system will help prevent people from ignoring threat warnings when they are released. “We thought that over time if we continue to have this general alert system that people would begin to ignore the alert, and even states and localities and local officials would find that it would be hard to justify the increased expense," Turner was quoted by the Associated Press as saying. “Because it does cost states and local governments hundreds of thousands of dollars every time the alert level is raised, I think we owe it to local governments to be more specific when possible,” he said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
